Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World & Problems of Chronology in the Bible

by Jack Finegan

Have you been skipping over references to time in the Bible because they seem too confusing? Professor Jack FineganÂ’s Handbook of Biblical Chronology clarifies those ancient systems of time reckoning and the biblical passages that use them. Part 1, Principles of Chronology in the Ancient World, describes the origins of basic units of time and surveys the calendars used in the ancient Near East through the Roman era. Part 2, Problems of Chronology in the Bible, discusses major periods of the Old Testament, as well as the lives of Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Apostles Peter and Paul. This thoroughly revised edition includes a number of improvements over the classic 1964 edition. The text has been updated, expanded, and retypeset. It features more than 190 helpful tables (including 43 new ones), new sections, new datings, full subject and Scripture indexes, a detailed table of contents, and updated bibliographies.

Genres: Faith, Reference, History, Research

426 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1964

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN EXTREMELY HELPFUL REFERENCE WORK FOR MANY ISSUES

[NOTE: This review is of the original 1964 edition of this book; in the 338-page hardcover edition.]

Author Jack Finegan wrote in the Preface, “The chronological references in the biblical records are numerous but not always easy to understand correctly. Bible time extends through thousands of years and Bible history touches many different lands of the Near Eastern and Mediterranean world. In the periods and places involved many different systems of time reckoning were employed, at least some of which may be presupposed in the biblical references… A major part of our undertaking… is to give a clear description of the various matters involved and to provide, within the compass of one handbook, the necessary lists and tables with which to work, as well as to indicate sources and further literature… a further part of the task is to try to work out against that background the correct significance of the biblical data themselves. Here it is… to indicate ways of taking up the problems in selected and representative areas.”

He notes, “When Cyril of Alexandria (died A.D. 444) computed his Easter-table he employed the era just described… and designated the separate years as so many years after Diocletian and his persecution. But when the prominent scholar of the next century, the Roman monk Dionysius Exiguus (‘Dionysius the Little’), in A.D. 525 prepared a continuation of Cyril’s Easter-table he did not count from Diocletian but ‘ab incarnatione Domini.’ Feeling it inappropriate to reckon from the reign of the imperial enemy of Christianity, he explained: ‘We have been unwilling to connect our cycle with the name of an impious persecutor, but have chosen rather to note the years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.’” (§218, pg. 132)

Of the Exodus, he states, “The statement of Ex 1:11 that the Israelites built for Pharaoh the store cities of Pithom and Ramses seems to require, however, that the enslavement immediately prior to the exodus be placed under the famous Pharaoh Ramses II. According to the best information presently available the reign of Ramses II is probably to be dated 1304-1237 B.C., and a date of the exodus not too long after 1300 B.C. seems more probable.” (§300, pg. 194)

Of the death of Herod, he explains, “In the narrative of Josephus there is mention of an eclipse of the moon shortly before the death of Herod… There is also mention shortly afterward of ‘the feast of unleavened bread, which the Jews call Passover.’ The reference to the Passover indicates spring. In 4 B.C. the month of Nisan began on Mar 29 and Nisan 14= Apr 11. As for the eclipse, this is the only eclipse of moon or sun mentioned by Josephus in any of his writings. Only on the night of Mar 12/13, 4 B.C. was there a lunar eclipse, and there was no such phenomenon in 3 or 2 B.C. Accordingly the death of Herod took place between Mar 12 and Apr 11 in the year 4 B.C. The date of Herod’s death seems thus firmly established … In the light of this date and of the references in Mt 2:1 and Lk 1:5, it seems necessary to conclude that the birth of Jesus could not have been later than the spring of 4 B.C.” (§365-366, pg. 231)

He notes, “The question remains whether, at some time in the latter years of Herod, Quirinius might have been connected with such a census in Palestine. Since Quirinius was a high Roman official with important assignments in the East… this does not appear unlikely… According to the list of governors of Syria, this would mean sometime in the years 9-6 B.C. No reason is evident why Quirinius could not have been associated with Saturninus in such a project…. That Quirinius actually took this census is still only concretely affirmed by Lk 2:2; under the circumstances as we have reconstructed them the affirmation is not unlikely.” (§376, pg. 237-238)

He observes, “in 5 B.C. and again in 4 B.C. a comet or a nova, certainly an unusual ‘star,’ appeared. The conjunctions of 7/6 B.C. could have attracted attention toward Palestine. The comets (or novae) of 5 or 4 B.C. could be the astronomical phenomenon back of the account of the Star of Bethlehem. The comet of March of 5 B.C. could have started the Magi on their journey. They must have reached Judea before the death of Herod… The comet of April of 4 B.C. could have been shining at that time. Since Herod’s order for the slaughter of the children included those ‘two years old or under’ (Mt 2:16), the birth of Jesus could have been as much as two years prior to the spring of 4 B.C.. Since, however, the wise men came ‘when Jesus was born’ (Mt 2:1) and since they saw him … [as] ‘a very young child’ or ‘infant,’ it seems more probable that the birth was not long before. At or beginning this Quirinius could well have been connected with a census in Judea. Perhaps a date for the birth of Jesus sometime in the winter of 5/4 B.C. best satisfied all the available evidence.” (§392, pg. 248)

He explains, “At least as early as in the second century dates were being given for the day of Jesus’ birth… Clement of Alexandria says … that from the birth of Christ to the date of Commodus… was one hundred ninety-four years, one month, and thirteen days, which gives Nov 18, 3 B.C., as Clement’s date for the birth of Christ. Even though he himself thus gives an exact date, he seems to speak somewhat disapprovingly when he says that there are also those who have determined not only the year but the day of the Savior’s birth.” (§393, pg. 249)

As to whether Jesus’ trial and execution took place on Passover (Nisan 15, as the synoptics say) or on the day before (Nisan 14, as the 4th gospel says), he comments, “[the] most convincing solution of the apparent discrepancy lies in the difference between the alternate ways of reckoning the day and accordingly the date… the earlier Israelite reckoning counted the day as beginning at sunrise, and … this reckoning is usually employed in the Synoptic Gospels… [and] the later Jewish reckoning counted the day as beginning at sunset, as found in the Fourth Gospel. The latter was undoubtedly the official manner of reckoning in the time of Jesus… The Fourth Gospel is, therefore, stating the event in terms of the official Jewish calendar, and in terms of that calendar the date of the death of Jesus was Friday, Nisan 14.” (§452, pg.290)

This book is “must reading” for anyone seriously studying chronological issues of the Bible.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an incredibly useful and very thorough reference book, but not a book to read cover to cover as others have said. It could have benefited from clearer sections and summaries. As it is, the book runs together quite a bit.

Even though the author covers some of this in his notations, he doesn't seem to give the Jewishness of the Bible enough weight in evaluating how the Biblical authors would have dated things themselves or understood time. Perhaps this is because of new research and more depth between the publication of this book and the year 2025, but it's hard to tell.

Nonetheless a solid reference book and the amount of connections to contemporary material is very thorough.

[Ryan Dailey · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was interesting to see where some of the references originated.
But I'm not keeping it in my reference library.

[Henry Sturcke]

Not the kind of book one reads from cover-to-cover, as I discovered when I tried. But useful to have on the shelf and to consult.